Heat Street's Stiles followed up with an instructive juxtaposition, based on a McClatchy report, in response to a (lame) pro-Hillary defense:

Defenders of the Clintons may be tempted to point out the Clinton Foundation is, at least nominally, a “charity,” and the foreign donations should be viewed positively for this reason. It would appear, however, that the Kuwaiti, Saudi, and Qatari governments view the Clinton Foundation as something more than a charity...

Clinton also described her approach to combat both radical Islamist terrorist networks (or "violent extremism" as it's euphemized by the administration in which she served for four years), and the serious threat of domestic radicalization. Some of her ideas and sentiments were strong, others were weak. But what was striking was how she delivered her "we must do X & and Z" remarks as if she were a newcomer to the political scene, who bears no responsibility for American policies stretching back years. Jim Geraghty's snark was on point:

If only Hillary Clinton had been in a a position to influence U.S. policy against ISIS…

She voted for the Iraq war, then became the foreign policy face of an administration that first irresponsibly "ended" that war in such a way that paved the way for ISIS' rise, then for political reasons suppressed and manipulated intelligence that pointed to the burgeoning threat they'd fueled. Clinton also called for new gun restrictions on "weapons of war," referring to "assault" rifles that differ enormously from actual military-issued firearms. I'll leave you with this simple critique of trying to slap a constitutionally-problematic bandaid on a problem by ineffectively targeting tools and methods, rather than actual causes:

Boxcutters and pressure cookers are also "weapons of war" under her line of argument.